I’ve seen several people claim that their state’s vote for the US presidential election doesn’t matter because their district is gerrymandered, which does not matter for most states.

Most states use the state’s popular vote to determine who the entire state’s electoral college votes go to. No matter how gerrymandered your district is*, every individual vote matters for assigning the electoral vote. [ETA: Nearly] Every single district in a state could go red but the state goes blue for president because of the popular vote.

*Maine and Nebraska are the notable differences who allot individual electors based on the popular vote within their congressional districts and the overall popular vote. It’s possible there are other exceptions and I’m sure commenters will happily point them out.

Edit: added strikethrough to my last statement because now I have confirmed it.

Of the 50 states, all but two award all of their presidential electors to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (Maine and Nebraska each award two of their electors to the candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote; the remaining electors are allocated to the winners of the plurality vote in the states’ congressional districts). (source)

  • Reyali@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    Exactly what I’m trying to help counter! In just 24 hours I heard two people I know from Texas mention that the presidential vote was affected by gerrymandering. I did my research to confirm that was wrong and have been trying to help fix that false belief since then.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      It depends on what they mean by affected. I say that lower voter turnout in Dem areas due to well crafted apathy counts as affected. Some people say that since everyone’s vote counts it’s not because they’re counting legal mechanisms as affected. Of course there are also some folks that just don’t understand and are wrong.

      I get what you’re saying and I agree with what you’re attempting here. It affects it because we let it depress us and keep us from voting (not me, I’m in a white suburb and it’s super easy for me to vote a couple of weeks early).

      • Reyali@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ah yeah, in both cases I’m referring to they were saying the gerrymandered districts meant their blue votes for president didn’t count. I agree that the apathy strongly affects the overall outcome!

        In one case, I tried to correct the perception by saying basically when I said here (popular vote determines the state’s allocation of electoral college votes), and I was “corrected” by my acquaintance that the president race is determined by electoral vote, not popular vote. 🤦🏻‍♀️

        • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          I mean, also true, but that’s nationally. Each of our votes goes towards the 40 electoral college votes that Texas gets, and it’s winner take all. So internal to Texas, each vote counts individually towards our electrical votes. But that’s hard to explain. Hence well crafted apathy.

          It sounds like they’ve been fed the same kind of bullshit that makes people think they’ll pay more in taxes if they have overtime.

          Misinformation is a hell of a drug. It’s hard to battle misinformation when the truth is so damn close to what they’re saying even when you know they’re wrong.

          You’re doing good work and it’s a hell of an uphill battle. There are a lot of confidently incorrect people out there saying almost the same thing as you, but it’s just wrong enough to be fucking dangerous.